"Nobody wants to take your guns away"

[Pray_4_War]

Except that they do, and now they are.  Queerfield Illinois just banned so-called "assualt weapons".  Citizens have 60 days to sell, render inoperable, or turn these guns in. 

If they don't comply it's a $1000 fine PER DAY.   And then what happens?  Who knows.

[Conker]

Except that they do, and now they are.  Queerfield Illinois just banned so-called "assualt weapons".  Citizens have 60 days to sell, render inoperable, or turn these guns in. 

If they don't comply it's a $1000 fine PER DAY.   And then what happens?  Who knows.

will be interesting to see how that pans out. it could be a good indicator of what will happen when it's rolled out nationwide and for different types of weapons. will there be the predicted bloodbath? or will the tough guy gun owners end up rolling over

[Agnostic007]

it is unlawful for a person "to carry, keep, bear, transport or possess an assault weapon in the Village," except if the weapon is "broken down in a non-functioning state," is "not immediately accessible to any person," or is "unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card."
Law enforcement officers, current and retired, are exempted.

The exceptions seem to reduce this law to a symbolic gesture. Probably get thrown out in court

[Pray_4_War]

it is unlawful for a person "to carry, keep, bear, transport or possess an assault weapon in the Village," except if the weapon is "broken down in a non-functioning state," is "not immediately accessible to any person," or is "unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card."
Law enforcement officers, current and retired, are exempted.

The exceptions seem to reduce this law to a symbolic gesture. Probably get thrown out in court

The exceptions make it impossible to defend yourself with that firearm rendering the firearm virtually useless.

They can fuck off with their Firearm Owners Identification Cards too.

[Agnostic007]

The exceptions make it impossible to defend yourself with that firearm rendering the firearm virtually useless.

They can fuck off with their Firearm Owners Identification Cards too.

Thank goodness there are a lot of other options available to the avg homeowner

[TuHolmes]

Many municipalities have ordinances against firearms. I don't particularly agree with them, but they have existed for years.

Many places in the old west had them and some still do. Just food for thought.

[Las Vegas]

Many municipalities have ordinances against firearms. I don't particularly agree with them, but they have existed for years.

Many places in the old west had them and some still do. Just food for thought.

Boom-town saloons, lots of strangers who'd otherwise have their guns right on their hip.  With everyone drinking, some giving others an attitude or a sneer (real or imagined), the idea was that the slightest innocent move could appear to be a draw.  In a crowded room.  Lmao, what a time it must've been.

Nothing even similar to this situation, but your point still stands.

[Las Vegas]

Too bad a town which decides to stick property owners with something like that, can't possibly back it up with guaranteed protection equal or better than what the person had.  Far from it.  No way it'd be any less than creepy to imagine how they'd do it, either.

All of it, IMO, rides on that "dangerous saloon" mentality, which is delusional for a town to have - not even sure what it could be called on a national scale.  Besides fake.

[Purge_WTF]

 Similar things are happening in my homestate of Massachusetts. No surprise - most Communist state in the Union.

[Pray_4_War]

Thank goodness there are a lot of other options available to the avg homeowner

Such as?

[TuHolmes]

Boom-town saloons, lots of strangers who'd otherwise have their guns right on their hip.  With everyone drinking, some giving others an attitude or a sneer (real or imagined), the idea was that the slightest innocent move could appear to be a draw.  In a crowded room.  Lmao, what a time it must've been.

Nothing even similar to this situation, but your point still stands.

No argument on the general statements about the late 1800s in the west, but you get what I'm saying.

Either we are for "states rights" or "localities rights" or whatever, or we aren't. Picking and choosing is kind of disingenuous if you ask me. If people don't like the states laws or a localities laws, then they surely can move elsewhere.

No one is forced to do anything or put up with anything.

[Kazan]

No argument on the general statements about the late 1800s in the west, but you get what I'm saying.

Either we are for "states rights" or "localities rights" or whatever, or we aren't. Picking and choosing is kind of disingenuous if you ask me. If people don't like the states laws or a localities laws, then they surely can move elsewhere.

No one is forced to do anything or put up with anything.

So states rights out weight the bill of rights?

[TuHolmes]

So states rights out weight the bill of rights?

Well, the bill of rights are just amendments, all amendments can be amended. If enough states determine that they want to amend this, then yeah, I guess states rights would out "weight" the Bill of Rights. They would then effectively change that right. It has happened and will probably happen again.

States rights have also come BEFORE amendments at certain times.

Women could vote in many western states long before they were legally allowed to vote from the federal for instance.

Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, and Utah to name a few. So yes, I would say that should all states ban together, their rights would outweigh the Bill of Rights, because they can effectively change them.

[Irongrip400]

No argument on the general statements about the late 1800s in the west, but you get what I'm saying.

Either we are for "states rights" or "localities rights" or whatever, or we aren't. Picking and choosing is kind of disingenuous if you ask me. If people don't like the states laws or a localities laws, then they surely can move elsewhere.

No one is forced to do anything or put up with anything.

I wonder how long before we start seeing some other wave of mass migration? Such as white people to the South or Northwest, or liberals to the Northeast or California. 

[TuHolmes]

I wonder how long before we start seeing some other wave of mass migration? Such as white people to the South or Northwest, or liberals to the Northeast or California. 

I don't know if that is how it works. For instance, most people live within 20 miles of where they grew up. That's a real thing. "Most" people just don't move.

Now I would and have, but it takes a very particular person who does that.

I think most people move for finances and job opportunities than just to be near other "like minded" sorts. I didn't move to California because of any political leanings. I moved because I wanted to work for EA, and in turn, it's been a lot of opportunity beyond EA.

That would not be a plus or a minus for either "side" really. Texas for instance is getting some businesses that decide to leave California, but then a lot of the people who are going to work there are moving from California to that location.

I know a lot of people over the past 6 years or so who have moved to Austin from areas around California. Austin has become a huge Tech area.

That will just even the state out in elections from being extremely red to perhaps less red. It won't change it to purple or anything, but it will change some areas some.

I think that's where migration will come from. That's why people are leaving areas in West Virginia and moving to bigger cities from the coal areas. Coal dies, and so people move to find opportunity.

It's not because of politics.